<div dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 5:11 AM efc--- via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Good morning Jason,<br>
<br>
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:<br>
<br>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2023, 5:19 PM efc--- via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> Good evening everyone,<br>
><br>
> Let's solve this together, once and for all! ;)<br>
> <br>
> I like that spirit! <br>
<br>
Well, if I learned anything from the MWI thread it is that we shouldn't<br>
just automatically reject investigating things that on the surface seem<br>
outside of our realm of answerable questions. ;)<br>
<br>
> When it comes to the meaning of life,<br>
> <br>
> I find it helps to start with a definition to make sure everyone is on the same page. For the purposes of what I write below, I am<br>
> using "meaning" in the sense of reason, purpose, and value. So the question of the meaning of life is to ask, what purpose, of any,<br>
> is there in living? What value, if any, is there in living? For what reason, if any, are we here?<br>
<br>
Interesting! I think we might have a first point of divergence here.<br>
When it comes to the meaning of life, I'm not so interested actually in<br>
the reason. That is a question I leave to science as in what's the<br>
reason I am here, evolution, reproduction etc.<br>
<br>
Purpose, could also stray close to science, as in propagating genes, but<br>
purpose could also be given a deeper meaning I think, so this is getting<br>
closer.<br>
<br>
When it comes to value, I think it would be interesting to see how value<br>
is measured and in what "currency"?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Some have come up with the term "<a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/util" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">utils</a>" (or alternatively hedons, utiles, utilons).</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
When I think about meaning of life, I think about something which gives<br>
me a deep sense of connection to the universe, it could be an over<br>
arching theme of my life, perhaps an ultimate quest or journey which<br>
fills my life with significance. (I tried on purpose to not use the<br>
words value or purpose here, so see if you can perhaps find a better<br>
word in english for me to use.)<br>
<br>
I also distinguish between levels of meaning. The paragraph above is the<br>
"ultimate" or final deep seated meaning that transforms the way you<br>
live. There is also a more mundande level of meaning to me, such as<br>
evolution, propagating genes, provide for my family, being a positive<br>
and contributing part of our global economy and thus on a tiny level<br>
making life better for everyone.<br>
<br>
Those types of meaning, I consider philosophical chicken soup. It's nice<br>
to say, it's nice to think about, but I wouldn't say that any of those<br>
things fundamentally shift the way I live my life. They are kind of<br>
"bolted on" a lifestyle that I was given by my culture and parents. So<br>
perhaps a benefit by verbalizing them, is that my life, given those<br>
reasons as a backdrop, might be lived more consciously than just going<br>
through the motions and not thinking about how, what you do, contributes<br>
to the rest of humanity and the world we're in.<br>
<br>
Do I make any sense?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think I see what you are pointing at.</div><div><br></div><div>Is it what the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzogchen" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Dzogchen</a> seek? Is it <a href="https://www.dlshq.org/messages/goal-of-life-is-god-realisation/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">God-Realization</a>? Is it the experience of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_death" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Ego Death</a>?</div><div><br></div><div>I think what is common in all of these is transcending the illusion of the self as one small part of existence, and expanding one's self-identification to the whole, or the all. This, as you say, can rewrite, or transform one's approach to life, interaction with others, and perhaps make one more "selfless."</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> I believe that it cannot be found as an<br>
> object in the world,<br>
> <br>
> I take this to mean it's not a physical object. But could it be a realizable state in this world, i.e., a state of mind or a state of<br>
> consciousness?<br>
<br>
I think it has two meanings. First of all, it is not a physical object,<br>
or a sentence or "secret" which can be spoken, and then suddenly be<br>
realized.<br>
<br>
The second meaning, just as you say, is that it could be realizable, as<br>
in a state of mind achieved based on thought, action, sudden<br>
inspiration, enlightenment, or what have you.<br>
<br>
> and I do not believe that it is something that can be told<br>
> which would instantly create meaning.<br>
> <br>
> Do you think it is describable at all?<br>
<br>
I think that perhaps you can describe it (to borrow from religion) as a<br>
map, or a path, but you will have to walk the path yourself to get to<br>
the destination. I also think that it might not be the same path for<br>
everyone, but perhaps a general direction could be found?<br>
<br>
> I think that meaning is deeply personal<br>
> and it is something which has to be experienced and lived in order to express<br>
> and feel it.<br>
> <br>
> I would say all intrinsicly meaningful (valuable) things, or in other words, anything that is meaningful/valuable on its own, are<br>
> states of awareness / consciousness. Those things that are "instrumentally meaningful" are valuable only in so far as their potential<br>
> to affect states of consciousness.<br>
<br>
Isn't "valuable only in so far as their potential to affect states of<br>
consciousness" a truism?</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think so. But it is a clarifying truism, and one that often goes not directly acknowledged.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> By the fact that we are physical beings with<br>
conscisoussness, wouldn't that mean everything is meaningful?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think there is some meaning (value) in every conscious experience (which may be regarded as negative or positive, on the whole).</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> "It there appeared that we could not, on reflection, maintain anything to be intrinsically and ultimately good, except in so far as<br>
> it entered into relation to consciousness of some kind and rendered good and desirable: and thus that the only ultimate Good, or End<br>
> in itself, must be Goodness or Excellence of Conscious Life."<br>
> -- Henry Sidgwick in “The Methods of Ethics” (1874)<br>
<br>
I agree to the extent that realizing deep seated meaning and values, is<br>
a mental process, fed with impressions and experiences from the physical<br>
world, or perhaps, not even that. It could be argued that some actually<br>
starve the mind of impressions and experiences to find their deep seated<br>
meaning.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, perhaps this is why some use meditation or sensory deprivation as a path to bring about such an experience of the kind you allude to.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> "Without consciousness, the universe would still be just as immense and awe-inspiring. But without a conscious mind to appreciate its<br>
> majesty, is there really any value in the existence of all that stuff? It is our experiences that make life worth living:<br>
> exhilarating pleasures, sweeping emotions, subtle thoughts. Without consciousness none of these things is possible."<br>
> — Phillip Goff in “Galileo’s Error: Foundationsfor a New Science of Consciousness” (2019)<br>
<br>
Agreed. When we talk our meaning (or the meaning of aliens with<br>
conscious minds) the mind I think is key. As you already know, I believe<br>
that a purely physical world without consciousness is devoid of truth,<br>
mathematics etc. So yes, I agree with this.<br>
<br>
> If we accept this premise, then the question is somewhat simplified. What are the desirous states of consciousness that we seek?<br>
<br>
Yes, and how (if at all?) can these states be induced in a human being<br>
in a reliable way, to enrich that persons life?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I can't speak to the reliability, but these are often mentioned:</div><div><ul><li>Stroke and Traumatic Brain Injury</li><li>Transcranial Stimulation</li><li>Meditation</li><li>Sensory Deprivation</li><li>Fasting</li><li>Psychedelics / Entheogens</li><li>Thought</li><li>Koans<br></li><li>Action</li></ul></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> And then secondary to that question, arise many other questions, such as: How do we weigh the relative difference between ending<br>
> suffering vs creating happiness? How do we prioritize between variety, quality, and quantity of desired experiences? Is it possible<br>
> to weigh the value of experiences between two different individuals?<br>
<br>
Seems like this would branch out into meta ethics and ethics? But one<br>
angle I think I see here is the epicurean one. You have actions that<br>
when performed, increase your mental well being, so those you should<br>
engage in, and actions which detract, you should abstain from, while of<br>
course, taking a long term and sustainable view of the action. I do not<br>
think these actions however, can be held to an objective standard and<br>
can be compared between individuals, except so far as the level of<br>
endorphines and subjectively reported feelings of contentment (which<br>
might or might not be reduced to endorphins).<br>
<br>
However, I also believe that deep seated meaning cannot be based on<br>
endorphines alone, since that does leave us open to the pleasure monster<br>
and what that would entail.<br>
<br>
I also think, that our reasoning and understanding of "everyday<br>
pleasure" and fundamental meaning/pleasure might relate to different<br>
things. But here it, for me, gets a bit fuzzy around the edges.<br>
<br>
> The meaning I am talking about is a deep seated, fundamental meaning that<br>
> brings you peace as an individual.<br>
> <br>
> To me, this is more a psychological and personal question, rather than a philosophical one. As each person has a different<br>
> psychology, the answer for what brings an individual the most peace can be different for each person, and therefore it is for each<br>
> person to try to answer this question for themselves. I doubt we will find any better on an answer than this, if this is how we<br>
> define meaning.<br>
<br>
I agree. For me, essential meaning is a deel personal question. I do<br>
however believe that the process of finding or reaching this state can<br>
be fed by philosophy and science. I think that exploring theories beyond<br>
our world could lead one to make the necessary connections in the brain,<br>
that inspires one to deeper meaning.<br>
<br>
So yes, it is deeply subjective, yet I think that actions and thoughts<br>
can influence the process so it is not completely devoid of tangible<br>
starting points.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I do think certain thought patterns/ideas can help bring about the experience. For example, meditating deeply on the question of how one came to exist. Or even watching a movie like "The Prestige" which is about what one experiences when duplicated. I think reading Arnold Zuboff's arguments in "One self: the logic of experience" can be helpful as well, but all of these can only "bring the horse to the water", so to speak. It is up to the person to do the drinking.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> But, I also believe there are different levels of meaning, and although it has<br>
> been criticized, as an approximate framework to talk within, I kind of like<br>
> Maslows pyramid of needs. We have a need for life, a drive to live, for safety,<br>
> food, etc. On top of that we have our everyday meaning, we need to feel wanted<br>
> and that we produce something. I believe for instance, that the human body was<br>
> made for input and output. If you starve the input, or starve the output,<br>
> you'll create an imbalance that will impact your psychological health.<br>
><br>
> So looking at positive psychology, I think we have some pointers and tools to<br>
> give us a good foundation for worldly meaning. Add to that, a pinch of stoicism<br>
> and epicureanism, and you can, with a bit of skill, create a nice philosophical<br>
> "mind castle" for yourself that does away with fear of death and other such<br>
> things.<br>
> <br>
> I think various societies, philosophies and religions, have given different answers to this question. But they all align generally<br>
> in the seat direction, that of doing good (either for oneself, for others, or for the world.)<br>
<br>
I think we can state that as a fact. =) But when it comes to religions,<br>
there are the origins of religion (the fundamental experience someone<br>
had) and the external manifestation of that experience, which was then<br>
transformed through the ages to a way to form cohesive groups and<br>
societies. So although they do serve as inspiration, I think a lot of<br>
the original experience and meaning has gotten lost through the<br>
centuries, and the only way to recapture that, is to "walk the walk" and<br>
not "talk the talk" so to speak.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Yes.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> According to Hinduism, there are four aims in life:<br>
> - Kāma (desire): sensual pleasure, emotional fulfillment, aesthetic (arts, dance, music, nature) appreciation, enjoyment, love,<br>
> affection<br>
> - Artha (means of living): career, financial security, prosperity<br>
> - Dharma (duties): virtue, moral values, ethics, non-violence, order<br>
> - Moksha (liberation): freeing oneself from the cycle of reincarnation through enlightenment, self-knowledge, and self-realization<br>
<br>
Ah yes, that deovetails quite nicely with my fuzzy statements above<br>
about different levels of meaning in your life and with Maslow (& Co) as<br>
well I think.<br>
<br>
> "What is the highest good in all matters of action? To the name, there is an almost complete agreement; for uneducated and educated<br>
> alike call it happiness, and make happiness identical with the good life and successful living. They disagree, however, about the<br>
> meaning of happiness."<br>
> -- Aristotle in “Nicomachean Ethics” NE I.4 (340 B.C.)<br>
<br>
Wise words!<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>:-)</div><div><br></div><div>Yes, so true, even to this day.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> But for me, that is not Meaning with a capital m. All the previous levels in<br>
> Maslows pyramid contribute to a good life, but at the top with have the<br>
> mystical self-actualization, and I am somewhat attracted to the earth (or<br>
> universe) shattering realizations of a union with the universe that the mystics<br>
> talk about.<br>
> <br>
> Or as variously described as:<br>
> Moksha<br>
> Nirvana <br>
> Enlightenment<br>
<br>
Yes. But I'm not happy with the religious overtones,</blockquote><div><br></div><div>While these terms are used in various religions, I don't find these particularly religious concepts, rather, they represent the common mystic teaching, which is almost universal across societies and times (the perennial philosophy). Which I think is what you allude to as the origin of religion, the fundamental experience itself.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> and I wonder if it<br>
is possible to achieve such a state outside of a religious tradition, or<br>
if the tradition is necessary for achievement of that state?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think it's quite possible to experience it outside of a religious tradition.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
I don't know if it is true or not, but wasn't the Buddha agnostic on the<br>
question of gods?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It varies a bit depending on which sect of Buddhism you emphasize, but there is, nonetheless, a general agreement that mind is what is primarily behind everything. Here are some passages that show the spectrum of Buddhist thinking on the question:</div><div><br></div><div>"All the phenomena of existence have mind as their precursor, mind as their supreme leader, and of mind are they made."<br>-- Gautama Buddha in “<a href="https://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/dhamma/dham1.htm#Canto1" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">The Dhammapada</a>” (c. 500 B.C.)<br></div><div><br></div><div>"I am the essence of all phenomena; nothing exists that is not my essence. […] Everything inanimate is my essence. Everything that lives is my essence. All the habitats and the beings living therein are my essence. Nothing exists that is not my essence because I am the universal root: there is nothing that is not contained in me. […] All that manifests from my Body, my Voice, and my Mind springs from my essence, is re-absorbed in it, and is nothing other than my essence."</div><div>-- <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulayar%C4%81ja_Tantra" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Kulayarāja Tantra</a> 55.1 (c. 850 A.D.)</div><div><br></div><div>Both of these passages place mind at the base of reality. But Tibetan Buddhism describes this "pure and total consciousness" as the "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulayar%C4%81ja_Tantra#The_Supreme_Source,_Pure_Perfect_Presence" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">supreme source</a>" from which everything emanates, and thus you might identify this almost like "God", perhaps more of the flavor of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80tman_(Hinduism)" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Atman</a> of Hinduism.</div><div><br></div><div>I think there is much we can learn from the study of old ideas, whatever their source. Rather than trying to rediscover everything from scratch, people have recorded their thoughts and ideas going back thousands of years, covering many billions of lives.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Might it be possible to distill those concepts into a more neutral or<br>
descriptive one, and distill the various techniques of achieving it for<br>
people to try?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Probably. But I don't know whether that would be better or worse.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Will that be in any way beneficial and enriching for people, or, would<br>
it risk people getting addicted to the experience to the detriment of<br>
"normal" society?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think experiments that have looked at giving ordinary people mystical experiences, have generally reported it as a profound positive impact on their life.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> Which I would say, is understanding who you really are.<br>
<br>
What do we mean when we ask who we are?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This gets back to our discussion on personal identity.</div><div>What experiences are ours. Why was "I" born as this person? Am "I" only this person? Am I the universe experiencing all lives, but only in a position to know one at a time? etc.</div><div>Have you seen <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6fcK_fRYaI" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">The Egg</a>?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> That might be a peak, and on the road to that peak, you can have deep seated<br>
> ethical and moral feelings such as doctors when it comes to the sanctity of<br>
> life, and saving lives, that give a deep meaning to your life. But just telling<br>
> the would-be doctor that it is nice to save lives, is not enough. The meaning<br>
> for the doctor is created when he is performing his function.<br>
><br>
> When it does come to the lighter kind of philosophical meaning, I am very fond<br>
> of epicureanism with the understanding that it talks about long-term<br>
> sustainable pleasure.<br>
> <br>
> Yes, this is how Epicurus framed it:<br>
> <br>
> "When we say, then, that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as<br>
> we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice, or willful misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain<br>
> in the body and of trouble in the soul."<br>
> -- Epicurus in “Letter to Menoeceus” (c. 300 B.C.)<br>
<br>
I don't know if I agree with the definition of absence of pain or not,<br>
but I do agree that it is a much better definition than "pleasure". Is<br>
contentment the absence of pain? Or is it more?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Dictionary.com gives "the state of being contented; satisfaction; ease of mind."</div><div>Ease of mind, I would say, is more or less the same as an "absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul."</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> But it could be argued, that peak mystical experiences<br>
> are aligned with that philosophy, since a deep seated, fully realized meaning<br>
> does bring you long-term sustainable pleasure so epicureanism can<br>
> be deeper than it looks at first sight. Actually, I'm not fond of the<br>
> word pleasure since I think brings with it bad connotations and associations.<br>
> Perhaps contentment might be better? You're the english speaking pros, so I'm<br>
> certain you'll be able to nail it down to a better word. =)<br>
> <br>
> Yes happiness or contentment are good. Epicurus defined it negatively, in terms of absence of pain and suffering, which I think is<br>
> close to the same thing as contentment.<br>
<br>
Ah, you answered my question above. To me as a non-native english<br>
speaker, it feels as if there is a difference between contentment and<br>
absence of pain. I think perhaps the reason could be that I have a worse<br>
grasp of the nuances of the language, and perhaps, the culture I grew up<br>
in (swedish)?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Contentment I think often bears a connotation of "mild happiness".</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> So with that said, what do you all think about the meaning of life?<br>
> <br>
> I think that all meaning (purpose/value) in life reduces, ultimately, to realizing states of consciousness. And as conscious life<br>
> forms, we all share a common goal: creating more, higher quality, and exploring the variety of, conscious experiences.<br>
<br>
Why would I be made happier if I had a way to create (and this is just a<br>
thought experiment) small, happy consciousnesses without being able to<br>
improve my own position?</blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It's not that you would be made happier by creating more experiences. Rather, it's that all conscious life regards having more positive experiences as better than fewer conscious experiences.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">For the same reason that I hope you would see the destruction of Earth as a negative: the continuance of consciousness life on earth is regarded as a "good thing" because it allows for more conscious experiences to be created.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> Sounds depressing to me that my life function<br>
would be to create life, instead of living the life I have.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">That's not your life function, it's a universal value that more experiences are better than fewer ones (when the experiences themselves are not negative ones). For example, I think anyone not in pain or suffering tends to prefer continued life (for example) compared to death, or continued life on earth, compared to extinction of life on earth.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Maybe we should focus on quality and not quantity? Maybe there is no<br>
inherent benefit in just quantity?<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I think some balance is needed. Otherwise we are led to extremes like a single mind having a permanent heroin high, or something like that. Likewise the value for variety, rather than just quantity or quality.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> The trajectory of life, everywhere and anywhere in the universe will, I think, follow this trajectory. We are, as conscious beings,<br>
> on a course to fill the universe with consciousness for the purposes of realizing as many states of consciousness as possible, to<br>
> eliminate suffering and pain, and promote the creation of positive experiences for all conscience beings.<br>
> It may make little difference whether it is us or our machine descendents that are in control, for I think all conscious beings<br>
> possess these goals, by virtue of the fact that they are conscious, and will deduce logically that all utility comes felt states of<br>
> consciousness (just as humans have been deducing for centuries).<br>
<br>
Best regards, <br>
Daniel</blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Best,</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Jason</div></div>